PDA

View Full Version : where did Madoff's money go?


RichD
March 23rd 09, 06:33 PM
Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
it go?

His personal take, and business overhead, was
a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
stocks, he would have matched the market
movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
risen for a long time, he should have done well.

Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.

Where, to whom, did it go?

--
Rich

Martin[_4_]
March 23rd 09, 07:47 PM
"RichD" > wrote in message
...
> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> it go?
>
> His personal take, and business overhead, was
> a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> stocks, he would have matched the market
> movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> --
> Rich


Good question.

But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!

--
Martin

nebulous
March 23rd 09, 08:03 PM
"Martin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RichD" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
>> fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
>> it go?
>>
>> His personal take, and business overhead, was
>> a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
>> stocks, he would have matched the market
>> movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
>> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
>> risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>>
>> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
>> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
>> he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
>> in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>>
>> Where, to whom, did it go?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>
>
> Good question.
>
> But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
> all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!

We've been round this before about Madoff. It was a Ponzi scheme.

Have you looked at the stock market recently? You'll find a lot more losers
than winners!

Neb

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 08:07 PM
RichD wrote:

> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his fund.
> There remains about $1 billion. Where did it go?

Like with any Ponzi scheme, some of it went to the early
investors so it looked like they were getting an excellent return.

> His personal take, and business overhead,
> was a tiny fraction of that. If he put the
> money into stocks, he would have matched
> the market movements, i.e. profitable.

You dont know that, he might have done worse than the average.

> Similarly with bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> risen for a long time, he should have done well.

> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.

> Where, to whom, did it go?

Bet plenty of it is stashed where the authoritys cant get it.

Rod Speed
March 23rd 09, 08:08 PM
Martin wrote:
> "RichD" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
>> fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
>> it go?
>>
>> His personal take, and business overhead, was
>> a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
>> stocks, he would have matched the market
>> movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
>> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
>> risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>>
>> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
>> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
>> he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
>> in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>>
>> Where, to whom, did it go?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>
>
> Good question.
>
> But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions
> lost by all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!

You can actually, most obviously when the stockmarket halves in value.

Jonathan Bryce[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 08:58 PM
Martin wrote:

> But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
> all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!

It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the money
and now can't afford to pay it back.

The people who received the money, ultimately Chinese factory workers,
deposited this money back in the banks, and the banks lent it out again to
the same people.

It went round this cycle many times, and every time, the amount of money in
bank deposits got bigger, and the amount of debt owed by the NINJAs
increased by the same amount.

Zack[_2_]
March 23rd 09, 09:29 PM
RichD > wrote:

>Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> it go?
>
Champagne & cavier. Plus a nice nest egg in Israeli
banks.

If Madoff was not making trades at all (see below) he could
not have lost the money in bad trades.

*************

Madoff's fund may not have made a single trade

By Jason Szep
Fri Jan 16, 2009

BOSTON (Reuters) - Bernie Madoff's investment fund may never have
executed a single trade, industry officials say, suggesting detailed
statements mailed to investors each month may have been an elaborate
mirage in a $50 billion fraud.

An industry-run regulator for brokerage firms said on Thursday there
was no record of Madoff's investment fund placing trades through his
brokerage operation.

That means Madoff either placed trades through other brokerage firms,
a move industry officials consider unlikely, or he was not executing
trades at all.

hal
March 23rd 09, 09:38 PM
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:33:26 -0700 (PDT), RichD
> wrote:


> Where, to whom, did it go?

it's sitting in banks in Israel

PeterL
March 23rd 09, 10:30 PM
On Mar 23, 11:33*am, RichD > wrote:
> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> *fund. There remains about $1 billion. * Where did
> *it go?
>
> His personal take, and business overhead, was
> *a tiny fraction of that. *If he put the money into
> stocks, he would have matched the market
> movements, i.e. profitable. * Similarly with
> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> *risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> he have LOST it all? *Commisions? Impossible;
> *in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> *Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> --
> Rich



A lawyer for the trustee seeking to locate disgraced financier Bernard
Madoff's assets for investors says more than $1 billion has been
found.

M Holmes
March 24th 09, 03:39 AM
In uk.finance RichD > wrote:
> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> it go?

> His personal take, and business overhead, was
> a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> stocks, he would have matched the market
> movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> risen for a long time, he should have done well.

> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.

> Where, to whom, did it go?

It was a pyramid scam. The money paid out was the money paid in minus
whatever Madoff used himself.

So the investors have most of the money. It's just that different
investors ended up with it than those who originally parted with it.

FoFP

Andy Pandy
March 24th 09, 09:40 AM
"Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
. uk...
> Martin wrote:
>
> > But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
> > all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>
> It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the money
> and now can't afford to pay it back.

Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses. So the money
went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.

--
Andy

M Holmes
March 24th 09, 11:13 AM
In uk.finance Andy Pandy > wrote:

> "Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>> Martin wrote:
>>
>> > But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
>> > all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>>
>> It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the money
>> and now can't afford to pay it back.

> Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses. So the money
> went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.

Mebbe we should start a campaign to make them pay it back...

It'd be a fine piece of mischief, and under the circumstances, it might
be quit popular.

-- Mike "Damn Exploitative House Sellers" Holmes

Michael Price
March 24th 09, 01:53 PM
On Mar 24, 5:33*am, RichD > wrote:
> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> *fund. There remains about $1 billion. * Where did
> *it go?
>
> His personal take, and business overhead, was
> *a tiny fraction of that. *If he put the money into
> stocks, he would have matched the market
> movements, i.e. profitable. * Similarly with
> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> *risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> he have LOST it all? *Commisions? Impossible;
> *in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> *Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> --
> Rich

The reason the scheme collapsed is the same as it usually is
with Ponzi schemes, people ask for their money back. Since
the money they're "owed" is more than the money in the scheme
if a significant proportion withdraw they take out more money than
is in the account.

Michael Price
March 24th 09, 01:54 PM
On Mar 24, 10:13*pm, M Holmes > wrote:
> In uk.finance Andy Pandy > wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
> . uk...
> >> Martin wrote:
>
> >> > But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
> >> > all the banks. *You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>
> >> It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the money
> >> and now can't afford to pay it back.
> > Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses. So the money
> > went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.
>
> Mebbe we should start a campaign to make them pay it back...
>
> It'd be a fine piece of mischief, and under the circumstances, it might
> be quit popular.
>
> -- Mike "Damn Exploitative House Sellers" Holmes

DO NOT GIVE THE POLITICIANS IDEAS!

tim.....
March 24th 09, 03:24 PM
"Michael Price" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 24, 5:33 am, RichD > wrote:
> Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> it go?
>
> His personal take, and business overhead, was
> a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> stocks, he would have matched the market
> movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> --
> Rich

The reason the scheme collapsed is the same as it usually is
with Ponzi schemes, people ask for their money back. Since
the money they're "owed" is more than the money in the scheme
if a significant proportion withdraw they take out more money than
is in the account.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ponzi schemes usually promise returns of several 100% pa, so it is easy for
it to run out of money as soon as new investors can't be found.

Personally, I can't believe that a fund which paid "only slightly more than
could have been achieved legally", would run out of funds in a few years
just because of a dearth of new investors. Each individual investor could
have been drip-fed their own capital investment and the funds would be good
for about 15 years. There is no need to use new investors money to pay
existing investors, so all this new money should still be there. If it
isn't, something else must have happened to the money, IMHO.

tim

PeterSaxton
March 24th 09, 04:53 PM
On 24 Mar, 15:24, "tim....." > wrote:
> "Michael Price" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 24, 5:33 am, RichD > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> > it go?
>
> > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> > in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> > Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> > --
> > Rich
>
> * The reason the scheme collapsed is the same as it usually is
> with Ponzi schemes, people ask for their money back. *Since
> the money they're "owed" is more than the money in the scheme
> if a significant proportion withdraw they take out more money than
> is in the account.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
>
> Ponzi schemes usually promise returns of several 100% pa, so it is easy for
> it to run out of money as soon as new investors can't be found.
>
> Personally, I can't believe that a fund which paid "only slightly more than
> could have been achieved legally", would run out of funds in a few years
> just because of a dearth of new investors. *Each individual investor could
> have been drip-fed their own capital investment and the funds would be good
> for about 15 years. *There is no need to use new investors money to pay
> existing investors, so all this new money should still be there. *If it
> isn't, something else must have happened to the money, IMHO.
>
> tim

Not if the "returns" are 11% a year. In 6-7 years it would be gone.

tim.....
March 24th 09, 06:36 PM
"PeterSaxton" > wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar, 15:24, "tim....." > wrote:
> "Michael Price" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 24, 5:33 am, RichD > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> > it go?
>
> > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> > in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> > Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> > --
> > Rich
>
> The reason the scheme collapsed is the same as it usually is
> with Ponzi schemes, people ask for their money back. Since
> the money they're "owed" is more than the money in the scheme
> if a significant proportion withdraw they take out more money than
> is in the account.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------
>
> Ponzi schemes usually promise returns of several 100% pa, so it is easy
> for
> it to run out of money as soon as new investors can't be found.
>
> Personally, I can't believe that a fund which paid "only slightly more
> than
> could have been achieved legally", would run out of funds in a few years
> just because of a dearth of new investors. Each individual investor could
> have been drip-fed their own capital investment and the funds would be
> good
> for about 15 years. There is no need to use new investors money to pay
> existing investors, so all this new money should still be there. If it
> isn't, something else must have happened to the money, IMHO.
>
> tim

Not if the "returns" are 11% a year. In 6-7 years it would be gone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You haven't added in the 5-6% he should have got legitimately (and at 11%
the money will last 9 years, there's no compounding here as the "profit" is
paid out, not reinvested)

tim

March 24th 09, 08:21 PM
the way i understand it, was it was mostly "fraud"...you would get a
statement saying your $10 million dollars earned a 20% return, but there
was no mney actually in the account. your $10 millio got paid out to the
people who collected their dividends as opposed to those who were
"lettin it ride".....of course,berie and family squandered a lt of it on
a lavish lifestyle.


"THE BLACK HAND" is the name of the international
terrorist group that is causing all the problems.

PeterSaxton
March 25th 09, 08:52 AM
On 24 Mar, 18:36, "tim....." > wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 24 Mar, 15:24, "tim....." > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Michael Price" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Mar 24, 5:33 am, RichD > wrote:
>
> > > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > > fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> > > it go?
>
> > > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > > a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> > > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > > movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> > > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > > risen for a long time, he should have done well.
>
> > > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > > he have LOST it all? Commisions? Impossible;
> > > in any case, he traded through his own brokerage.
>
> > > Where, to whom, did it go?
>
> > > --
> > > Rich
>
> > The reason the scheme collapsed is the same as it usually is
> > with Ponzi schemes, people ask for their money back. Since
> > the money they're "owed" is more than the money in the scheme
> > if a significant proportion withdraw they take out more money than
> > is in the account.
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *-------------------
>
> > Ponzi schemes usually promise returns of several 100% pa, so it is easy
> > for
> > it to run out of money as soon as new investors can't be found.
>
> > Personally, I can't believe that a fund which paid "only slightly more
> > than
> > could have been achieved legally", would run out of funds in a few years
> > just because of a dearth of new investors. Each individual investor could
> > have been drip-fed their own capital investment and the funds would be
> > good
> > for about 15 years. There is no need to use new investors money to pay
> > existing investors, so all this new money should still be there. If it
> > isn't, something else must have happened to the money, IMHO.
>
> > tim
>
> Not if the "returns" are 11% a year. In 6-7 years it would be gone.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
>
> You haven't added in the 5-6% he should have got legitimately (and at 11%
> the money will last 9 years, there's no compounding here as the "profit" is
> paid out, not reinvested)
>
> tim

What makes you think he invested any money? Even if he did he could
have lost money on his trading.

tim.....
March 25th 09, 10:23 AM
"PeterSaxton" > wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar, 18:36, "tim....." > wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" > wrote in message
>

>
> tim

What makes you think he invested any money? Even if he did he could
have lost money on his trading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He had to do something with it. Yes, he could have lost money on his
trading, but if he did that, there ought to be some records of those
transactions.

I still don't believe that the new funds ended up in the hands of the
historic investors as thier "interest". The sums don't add up.

tim

PeterSaxton
March 25th 09, 01:10 PM
On 25 Mar, 10:23, "tim....." > wrote:
> "PeterSaxton" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 24 Mar, 18:36, "tim....." > wrote:
>
> > "PeterSaxton" > wrote in message
>
> > tim
>
> What makes you think he invested any money? Even if he did he could
> have lost money on his trading.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
>
> He had to do something with it. *Yes, he could have lost money on his
> trading, but if he did that, there ought to be some records of those
> transactions.
>
> I still don't believe that the new funds ended up in the hands of the
> historic investors as thier "interest". *The sums don't add up.
>
> tim

My guess is that he has hidden the money around the world once he knew
he was close to getting found out.

RichD
March 29th 09, 05:40 AM
On Mar 23, M Holmes > wrote:

> > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > *fund. There remains about $1 billion. * Where did
> > *it go?
> > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > *a tiny fraction of that. *If he put the money into
> > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > movements, i.e. profitable. * Similarly with
> > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > *risen for a long time, he should have done well.
> > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > he have LOST it all?
>
> It was a pyramid scam. The money paid out was the
> money paid in minus whatever Madoff used himself.
>
> So the investors have most of the money. It's just that
> different investors ended up with it than those who
> originally parted with it.

That's the only thing that makes sense.

So Andy ponied up $60 billion, and pulled
out $109 billion, while Bob paid in $55 billion,
and pulled out $6 billion.

The point is, finance is a zero sum game,
so the uproar that "$49 billion disappeared"
is not really so...

--
Rich

Adam Russell[_2_]
March 29th 09, 03:22 PM
"RichD" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, M Holmes > wrote:

> > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> > it go?
> > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > risen for a long time, he should have done well.
> > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > he have LOST it all?
>
> It was a pyramid scam. The money paid out was the
> money paid in minus whatever Madoff used himself.
>
> So the investors have most of the money. It's just that
> different investors ended up with it than those who
> originally parted with it.

That's the only thing that makes sense.

So Andy ponied up $60 billion, and pulled
out $109 billion, while Bob paid in $55 billion,
and pulled out $6 billion.

The point is, finance is a zero sum game,
so the uproar that "$49 billion disappeared"
is not really so...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<end quote>
Well, yea but if you put $100k in a fake fund and it pays you 10% a year the
money really is gone in 10 years.

PeterSaxton
March 29th 09, 05:00 PM
On 29 Mar, 15:22, "Adam Russell" >
wrote:
> "RichD" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Mar 23, M Holmes > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > > fund. There remains about $1 billion. Where did
> > > it go?
> > > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > > a tiny fraction of that. If he put the money into
> > > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > > movements, i.e. profitable. Similarly with
> > > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > > risen for a long time, he should have done well.
> > > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > > he have LOST it all?
>
> > It was a pyramid scam. The money paid out was the
> > money paid in minus whatever Madoff used himself.
>
> > So the investors have most of the money. It's just that
> > different investors ended up with it than those who
> > originally parted with it.
>
> That's the only thing that makes sense.
>
> So Andy ponied up $60 billion, and pulled
> out $109 billion, while Bob paid in $55 billion,
> and pulled out $6 billion.
>
> The point is, finance is a zero sum game,
> so the uproar that "$49 billion disappeared"
> is not really so...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
> <end quote>
> Well, yea but if you put $100k in a fake fund and it pays you 10% a year the
> money really is gone in 10 years.

What money as gone?

Geode
March 29th 09, 09:47 PM
On 24 mar, 10:40, "Andy Pandy" >
wrote:
> "Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
>
> . uk...
>
> > Martin wrote:
>
> > > But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions lost by
> > > all the banks. *You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>
> > It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the money
> > and now can't afford to pay it back.
>
> Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses. So the money
> went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.
>
> --
> Andy

Most of the sellers were simple the constructors. They borrowed that
money to build the houses to start with.
But some were caught in the middle of the crisis, and now they cannot
sell those new properties, or even to finish those not yet sold. The
banks cannot give more money to finished the houses unless they are
already sold to someone with a mortgage.
Leopoldo

tim.....
March 29th 09, 11:40 PM
"Geode" > wrote in message
...
On 24 mar, 10:40, "Andy Pandy" >
wrote:
> "Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
>
> . uk...
>
> > Martin wrote:
>
> > > But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions
> > > lost by
> > > all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>
> > It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the
> > money
> > and now can't afford to pay it back.
>
> Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses. So the
> money
> went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.
>
> --
> Andy

Most of the sellers were simple the constructors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The people who made the money were the sellers of the overpriced land.

tim

Rod Speed
March 30th 09, 12:08 AM
tim..... wrote:
> "Geode" > wrote in message
> ...
> On 24 mar, 10:40, "Andy Pandy" >
> wrote:
>> "Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
>>
>> . uk...
>>
>>> Martin wrote:
>>
>>>> But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions
>>>> lost by
>>>> all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>>
>>> It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent
>>> the money
>>> and now can't afford to pay it back.
>>
>> Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses.
>> So the money
>> went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.
>>
>> --
>> Andy
>
> Most of the sellers were simple the constructors.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The people who made the money were the sellers of the overpriced land.

Plenty of the constructors made plenty of money too.

Same with the commissions on the loans too.

Michael Price
March 30th 09, 04:09 AM
On Mar 29, 3:40*pm, RichD > wrote:
> On Mar 23, M Holmes > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > > *fund. There remains about $1 billion. * Where did
> > > *it go?
> > > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > > *a tiny fraction of that. *If he put the money into
> > > stocks, he would have matched the market
> > > movements, i.e. profitable. * Similarly with
> > > bonds; in fact, bond prices have consistently
> > > *risen for a long time, he should have done well.
> > > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > > he have LOST it all?
>
> > It was a pyramid scam. The money paid out was the
> > money paid in minus whatever Madoff used himself.
>
> > So the investors have most of the money. It's just that
> > different investors ended up with it than those who
> > originally parted with it.
>
> That's the only thing that makes sense.
>
> So Andy ponied up $60 billion, and pulled
> out $109 billion, while Bob paid in $55 billion,
> and pulled out $6 billion.
>
> The point is, finance is a zero sum game,
> so the uproar that "$49 billion disappeared"
> is not really so...
>
> --
> Rich

Finance is not a zero sum game if it is used to direct resources
towards productive areas. Of course with Madoff it's a negative
sum game because the money he spends hiding what he does
subtracts from the return he actually gets. Not to mention investing
with him diverts funds from people who know what they're doing.

Geode
March 30th 09, 10:09 PM
On 29 mar, 23:40, "tim....." > wrote:
> "Geode" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 24 mar, 10:40, "Andy Pandy" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Jonathan Bryce" > wrote in message
>
> . uk...
>
> > > Martin wrote:
>
> > > > But doesn't the same question remain unanswered re. the squillions
> > > > lost by
> > > > all the banks. You can't have a loser without a winner...!
>
> > > It was lent to people with no income, no jobs or assets, who spent the
> > > money
> > > and now can't afford to pay it back.
>
> > Such loans were generally for the purchase of (overpriced) houses. So the
> > money
> > went to the sellers of those overpriced houses.
>
> > --
> > Andy
>
> Most of the sellers were simple the constructors.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The people who made the money were the sellers of the overpriced land.
>
> tim

ok, the question is, where hid they the money? If they put it in the
banks, well they must wait a while for the banks lend most of it to
other people with trash mortgages.
That is why I think the government should expend money to devalue all
the scoundrel money that caused this crisis.
Leopoldo

DanB (Previously DB)
March 30th 09, 10:42 PM
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29madoff.html>

Now, were is the AIG money going, same place?

RichD
March 31st 09, 04:18 AM
On Mar 29, Michael Price > wrote:
> > > > Bernard Madoff claims $50 billion was lost in his
> > > > *fund. There remains about $1 billion. * Where did
> > > > *it go?
> > > > His personal take, and business overhead, was
> > > > *a tiny fraction of that.
> > > > Of course, he was sending out bogus statements,
> > > > claiming 10% gain per year, but still, how could
> > > > he have LOST it all?
>
> > > It was a pyramid scam. The money paid out was the
> > > money paid in minus whatever Madoff used himself.
>
> > > So the investors have most of the money. It's just that
> > > different investors ended up with it than those who
> > > originally parted with it.
>
> > That's the only thing that makes sense.
>
> > So Andy ponied up $60 billion, and pulled
> > out $109 billion, while Bob paid in $55 billion,
> > and pulled out $6 billion.
>
> > The point is, finance is a zero sum game,
> > so the uproar that "$49 billion disappeared"
> > is not really so...
>
> Finance is not a zero sum game if it is used to direct resources
> towards productive areas. *

True, in the macro sense. But if we play
'follow the dollars' - the subject of this thread -
it is zero sum; people gave Madoff X billions,
where did it go? He didn't burn Fed. Reserve
Notes in the fireplace, did he?

> Of course with Madoff it's a negative sum game
> because the money he spends hiding what he does
> subtracts from the return he actually gets. *Not to
> mention investing with him diverts funds from people
> who know what they're doing.

It''s nice to meet someone who understands
the role of finance in a market economy.

--
Rich